jdm2212

5 ms·

1.
by jdm2212 7d ago
Their business model is based on making money from LLMs. That is some mix of (a) selling API access to businesses and (b) making money from ads / referral fees / whatever from consumer usage. The businesses API usage will disappea
2.
by jdm2212 7d ago
The actual money will be made because the driverless car manufacturer is self-insuring and cutting out the insurance company. Competition among manufacturers will then pass most of those savings on to you. Similarly, many car makers offer h
3.
by jdm2212 7d ago
I've worked for three different companies that all use some mix of enterprise agreements, self-hosting, and AWS Bedrock to ensure that proprietary data doesn't get trained on. It's not a difficult or complicated problem.
4.
by jdm2212 7d ago
You are, again, flatly wrong about this. ZDR involves infrastructure separation that prevents any data flowing back.
5.
by jdm2212 7d ago
Insurance will just be bundled with the self-driving car software. Insurance and car are separate today because driver and car are separate today. Once they're the same, there's lots of money to be saved by bundling the sale.
6.
by jdm2212 7d ago
This depends on local defamation laws. It's an issue with all online reviews in countries like Germany where the onus is on Google to establish a review isn't defamatory.
7.
by jdm2212 7d ago
This is flatly false. ZDR means the customer request is processed and nothing about its content remains on the model provider's servers.
8.
by jdm2212 7d ago
Nothing is certain in life, but huge corporations very rarely engage in flagrant, intentional breach of contract at all, and particularly not with counterparties who have good alternatives available. If OpenAI turned out to be training on Z
9.
by jdm2212 7d ago
By Buckmaster's own account, OpenAI (a) wanted him and Alpoge to publish their Euler result first and (b) wanted Buckmaster to author the Navier-Stokes paper, and (c) when he refused both of those, tried to get Alpoge to talk him into
10.
by jdm2212 7d ago
It produces "high level summaries" so it's perhaps legally akin to note-taking rather than audio recording?
11.
by jdm2212 8d ago
The available information is essentially that story. OpenAI's account: they heard a rumor that a Millennium Prize problem had been solved, so they tried to do it themselves and succeeded. Then they contacted the other researchers and
12.
by jdm2212 8d ago
The boardroom will absolutely veto a decision like "let's give all of our proprietary data way to a company that will use it to train a competing product". That's why zero data retention exists, and why it's corpora
13.
by jdm2212 8d ago
Seems like OpenAI did a boring normal corporate thing (find out your competitor made a breakthrough, try to replicate it) and then when the other mathematicians found out OpenAI had beat them to Navier-Stokes, they decided to lie about what
14.
by jdm2212 8d ago
They released a statement on how they solved one of the biggest open problems in math. That statement includes a narrative of how they decided to tackle the problem. Idk what seems retroactive and contrived about, like, "we thought our
15.
by jdm2212 8d ago
Why would it even be bad for OpenAI to try to beat Anthropic to cracking one of the 6 biggest open problems in math? Like who is getting punched?
16.
by jdm2212 8d ago
Levent Alpoge is an Anthropic employee with access to Anthropic compute who routinely throws that at problems and then posts the results on Twitter. They thought they were competing with him! And they in fact were. It's just that in th
17.
by jdm2212 8d ago
It'd be corporate suicide for them to be caught violating zero-data-retention commitments. But also if you're really paranoid you can just use ChatGPT on Azure or AWS, where nothing is flowing back to OpenAI at all.
18.
by jdm2212 8d ago
RE item 2 -- in lab science, it is entirely normal to have competitive-verging-on-adversarial relationships between labs racing to get results first. Mathematicians apparently need to get used to the idea that math is a lab science now. And
19.
by jdm2212 8d ago
Why shouldn't they advance math research and test the limits of their models?
20.
by jdm2212 8d ago
It is worth actually reading OpenAI's response, which is basically that they were trying to see if their models could do what Anthropic had already done, and were surprised to discover that (a) Anthropic had not done it at all, and (b)
21.
by jdm2212 8d ago
The most sympathetic interpretation is just what OpenAI actually claims: they thought the other guys already got there, wanted to see if OpenAI could do it too, and were surprised to discover the other guys hadn't gotten there yet.
22.
by jdm2212 9d ago
No, the other guy is just wrong. Capital and labor are complements. If one is plentiful (capital) and the other scarce (labor) then the scarce one gets bid up. You pay the one technician $200k instead of $80 because that technician has an o
23.
by jdm2212 9d ago
> As automation takes over, the value of labor collapses This is the reverse of how the economy actually works. You need labor and capital to turn raw materials into goods and services. If you invested a lot in capital in automation, you
24.
by jdm2212 9d ago
You think that Morris accidentally wrote the malware or that he accidentally released it (in a way specifically intended to obfuscate his connection to it)? lol
25.
by jdm2212 9d ago
Intent is literally a requirement for conviction under CFAA. It's the first line of the law: "Whoever having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access..." Robert Morris very intentiona
26.
by jdm2212 10d ago
Virtually all criminal law accounts for the perpetrator's state of mind. Drunk driving is a specific, rare carveout. The reason for this should be obvious: it is nearly impossible to prove a drunk person's state of mind beyond a r
27.
by jdm2212 10d ago
Drunk driving is an actus reus offense basically everywhere, so it's not analogous at all.
28.
by jdm2212 10d ago
Who was prosecuted under CFAA for something they did not intend to do?
29.
by jdm2212 10d ago
If you make a serious attempt to look like you're engaged in legitimate business, people will (shockingly) be somewhat more hesitant to think you're committing a crime than if you are just openly committing crime.
30.
by jdm2212 12d ago
Pretty sure Meta doesn't do that on iOS devices because that'll get you banned from the App Store. They just figured out ways to not need individual fingerprinting.

More ›